11–20 of 97 posts
Where's the actual solution? I feel like I'm missing something because what I see is some plausible commentary about it and some interesting discussion of Latin and ligatures but where's the actual decoding of the writing?
Rather convenient "solution". The solution is the heading and index...which are missing. Author might be right, but that is essentially an un-provable statement and doesn't really amount to a solution. But rather a statement that it can't be solved.
Not at all. Someone more motivated than the author can choose to decode it. If much of it was lifted, then you can trace back the lifted "recipe" to the earlier work and construct the index.
However, it's going to be very painful, slow work. For no real gain (who really cares about a sloppily done Medieval health self-help book?).
Where's the actual solution? I feel like I'm missing something because what I see is some plausible commentary about it and some interesting discussion of Latin and ligatures but where's the actual decoding of the writing?
As I read it, the writing is un-decodable because it's not really "writing" in the conventional sense, it's recipes encoded using single-letter abbreviations, many of which require an index to decipher. No index is present, and the author surmises that it was never completed, or lost.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4cRlqE3D3RQ
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8nHbImkFKE4
tl;dr: it's probably real writing, likely related to Roma/Syriac
Rather convenient "solution". The solution is the heading and index...which are missing. Author might be right, but that is essentially an un-provable statement and doesn't really amount to a solution. But rather a statement that it can't be solved.
Rather convenient "solution". The solution is the heading and index...which are missing. Author might be right, but that is essentially an un-provable statement and doesn't really amount to a solution. But rather a statement that it can't be solved.
Rather convenient "solution". The solution is the heading and index...which are missing. Author might be right, but that is essentially an un-provable statement and doesn't really amount to a solution. But rather a statement that it can't be solved.
> Author might be right, but that is essentially an un-provable statement and doesn't really amount to a solution. But rather a statement that it can't be solved. Not at all. Someone more motivated than the author can choose to decode it. If much of it was lifted, then you can trace back the lifted "recipe" to the earlier work and construct the index. However, it's going to be very painful, slow work. For no real gai…
So far I can can find online, this piece is the only thing he has ever published about the Voynich manuscript: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22nicholas+gibbs%22+voynich
Who is Nicholas Gibbs? Does anyone besides Nicholas Gibbs trust his opinion on these matters? And how did he convince the TLS to publish this drivel?
(to avoid being entirely negative, here's a link to a blog that shows what some better Voynich research looks like: https://stephenbax.net)
